Sign In Join 



What if you were in charge of GM?

874 messages,  Last post on Oct 28, 2009 at 10:20 AM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Automotive News, Classic Cars, Concept Cars, Future Vehicle


Messages Page 4 of 88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
88
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#25 of 874
Re: Why It's So Difficult To Just Eliminate Brands [hpmctorque] by steve_ HOST
Nov 06, 2008 (11:18 am)
Reply

Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 06, 2008 11:08 am)

Which leaves bankruptcy as about the only other option for renegotiating and canceling franchise agreements with dealers. And who's going to buy a car while a manufacturer is in Chapter 11 for a year or two working out all those deals?
 
In other news, Auto execs, UAW to meet with Pelosi. (Yahoo)
 
"Two people familiar with plans for the meeting said the top executives of General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, along with the union's president, will meet with Pelosi to talk about the impact of the credit crisis and the industry's access to government funding.
 
She'll meet in Washington with Bob Nardelli of Chrysler, Alan Mulally of Ford, Rick Wagoner of GM and United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, the people familiar with the meeting plans said.
 
The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the meeting is private.
 
Pelosi has called for Congress to enact a stimulus program to shore up the sinking economy during its lame-duck session."
#26 of 874
just strangle 'em by nippononly
Nov 06, 2008 (1:05 pm)
Reply
give the brand one model only, make it an old model, don't update it. How long do you think the dealer will hang in there before giving up? That would be easy to do with Buick. Pontiac too - just eliminate everything not shared with Chevy (AFTER you move the Vibe to the Chevy line). Even GMC.
 
Before you do that, offer an incentive program to dealers to switch brands, or close up. Make it clear that this is a one-time deal that will not last forever.
 
I know GM has already been offering dealers incentives to consolidate, has it also been offering them incentives just to close?
#27 of 874
Re: just strangle 'em [nippononly] by cooterbfd
Nov 06, 2008 (1:43 pm)
Reply

Replying to: nippononly (Nov 06, 2008 1:05 pm)

What makes you think that "choking off" a dealers supply by giving it 1 model would pass the muster of these state franchise laws?? I'd say that if it would, GM and Chrysler would've done that on the first go around.
#28 of 874
Re: What I would do. [jae5] by georgecavalier
Nov 06, 2008 (2:02 pm)
Reply

Replying to: jae5 (Nov 06, 2008 11:02 am)

2009 is the first year for a Colorado/Canyon with a V8. While a small truck with a V8 puts a smile on my face the 4.2 Atlas 6-cyl would be more than enough power (290hp vs 300hp) for a truck that size. I agree that Colorado isn't the best name around. Maybe GM should go back to S-10? That name has alot of recognition. Marketing is important as well. What good is a great car if no one knows about it. The main problem with the Holden-based GTO was that there wasn't a whole lot that screamed Pontiac or GTO... it looked just like it was... a rebadged Monaro. You're right about the whole "wait till next year" concept. For example, the full-size trucks and SUV's were to get 6-speed autos 1-2 years after they were introduced and were stuck with the now-primitive 4-speed.
#29 of 874
Re: just strangle 'em [nippononly] (cooterbfd) by hpmctorque
Nov 06, 2008 (2:14 pm)
Reply
I was thinking exactly the same thing, cooterbfd.
 
I'm not a lawyer but, nippononly, if you were a dealer being strangled, wouldn't you start a class action suit, or at least join one, against the auto company for, at a minimum, violating the spirit of the law?
 
The Detroit Three and the unions have no doubt made big mistakes over the years, but at this point there are no easy solutions to their problems, only difficult and painful ones. It's really too bad, and it impacts many, many people. I don't hold myself out as an expert on this matter, by any means, but my sense of things is that an additional $25 billion (for a total of $50 billion) would be insufficient, given their current and collective cash burn rate.
#30 of 874
Re: just strangle 'em [nippononly] (cooterbfd) [hpmctorque] by nippononly
Nov 06, 2008 (9:53 pm)
Reply

Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 06, 2008 2:14 pm)

I dunno, it's a pretty long shot, a lawsuit alleging violation of the "spirit of the law"? I think they would do just fine with that strategy, but it would take a fairly long time to rid themselves of the brand.
#31 of 874
Re: just strangle 'em [nippononly] by tlong
Nov 06, 2008 (10:02 pm)
Reply

Replying to: nippononly (Nov 06, 2008 1:05 pm)

give the brand one model only, make it an old model, don't update it.
 
How about this variant? Say GM has decided that the only two brands it wants left are Chevy and Caddy. So for each other brand, start phasing out brand-unique vehicles. EVERY vehicle sold by Pontiac, Saturn, Saab, Buick, etc. is an exact copy rebadge of a Chevy vehicle! No more separate taillights or grills! Same options lists as Chevy!
 
For example, in 2 years Pontiac has only a G6 that is *exactly* the same as the Malibu, with Pontiac badges. No brand identity, but it's still a Pontiac! And a couple of other cars/SUVs similarly. So if you're a Pontiac dealer you can still sell Pontiacs! But GM really has only Chevy and Caddy, and the other brands just sell Chevies with new badges. And then offer these dealers incentives to switch to Chevy! So the advantage is:
 
Each franchisee still gets products to sell.
 
GM only has to focus on great design and products for Chevy and Caddy. Other brands get new badges and nothing else. GM consolidates brand HQs into the Chevy division, since they're only rebadges of Chevies. GM can provide some minimal advertising for the other brands - in fact, use the same commercial and put the alternate brand name on it! (rebadged commercial!). GM can now focus and saves a ton of money. GM also doesn't get sued by Pontiac, Saturn, and Buick dealers as they still get products to sell. GM doesn't have to pay those dealers to close shop, they can hang around if they want to.
 
Each franchisee knows that while they get products indefinitely, their line is done, strategically. They have incentives to move on. They can take six months or 3 years, but eventually there will be few dealers left of the other brands and those brands can die a slow death.
#32 of 874
Re: just strangle 'em [tlong] by nippononly
Nov 06, 2008 (10:33 pm)
Reply

Replying to: tlong (Nov 06, 2008 10:02 pm)

Nefarious! I like your idea better than my original one.
#33 of 874
Re: just strangle 'em [tlong] by xrunner2
Nov 07, 2008 (7:41 am)
Reply

Replying to: tlong (Nov 06, 2008 10:02 pm)

Each franchisee still gets products to sell.
  
GM only has to focus on great design and products for Chevy and Caddy. Other brands get new badges and nothing else. GM consolidates brand HQs into the Chevy division, since they're only rebadges of Chevies.

 
Take that idea a little farther.
 
A town about 20 miles from me has a Chevy dealer and a Pontiac/Buick/GMC dealer about one mile apart. There are probably hundreds of other towns, suburbs with similar dealer proximities. Would not Chevy dealers bring lawsuits on GM for violating some kind of exclusivity arrangements for "territory" infringement? Aren't dealers given a territory in which to operate?
#34 of 874
Re: just strangle 'em [xrunner2] by circlew
Nov 07, 2008 (8:01 am)
Reply

Replying to: xrunner2 (Nov 07, 2008 7:41 am)

Here is my plan for the U.S. Auto industry, I am going to petition the U.S. Government for the C.E.O. position in the new company I proposed. GM and Chrysler would go away as we know it. All Executive management would be changed out and a government oversight position would be installed to track metrics under the pay back plan. Ford would be the second U.S. Company to survive if they follow my strategy.
  
I will use the bailout money to buy out workers that can not be part of the new company so they will have enough funds to re-train, including supplier companies that are affected by the massive changes I propose. The U.A.W. would go away under my plan as well as guaranteed pension costs and health care for retired since B.O. will fix health care in the U.S. while I rebuild the Auto Industry and Chevy and Cadillac would emerge when the smoke cleared as the twin divisions.
  
I do not expect any bonus to be paid until every cent of the loans from the Government are paid and profits EXCEED the industry benchmarks.
  
Market share would drop as production is reduced to dry up all of the excess capacity in the new/used market. After 3 years, no old platforms would exist as they are know today. Minimum efficiency specifications for both divisions would be 20 MPG City fuel economy and average would be 35 MPG COMBINED target 2011.
  
Chevy
Corvette
Camaro
Malibu
Caravan
Jeep - 4 variants
Tahoe
WOW (my pet economy car beating Civic price and Economy)
  
Cadillac
Alpha (3-Series Fighter with Economy, Mid-Level and High Performance)
Alpha CUV - Eldorado is the name for the alpha's
CTS - Would be changed to Electra
SRX - Changed to Park Avenue
DTS - Changed to DeVille
Escalade
  
Regards,
OW

Messages Page 4 of 88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
88
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement